DOJ Could Ban Texas Flights Over Anti-Patdown Law

hellkyng writes "The Department of Justice may ban flights from Texas because of the Anti-Patdown law making its way through the legal system. Says Rep. David Simpson, 'Someone must make a stand against the atrocities of our government agents.' Should be interesting to see if Texas can pave the way for grope-free flying fun."

Comments

Update on this story

[Sonny Yatsen]

As of earlier today, the law's main sponsor, Dan Patrick, R-Houston, said the law is dead after support for the law collapsed.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/28032459/detail.html

Re:Update on this story

[GlassHeart]

I think 99% of Americans would support this.

I don't think you can get 99% of Americans to agree that the earth isn't flat.

Re:Update on this story

[ArcherB]

Interstate commerce clause trumps the 9th and 10th. At least that is what the courts will say, and they may be correct. That said, I support states telling the feds to fuck off, as that is the only thing that gets them to reconsider stupid regulations that do NOT make flying safer.

Should the Interstate Commerce Clause trump the 1st or 2nd? No. Why? Because the authors of the Constitution wrote it, but some were hesitant to sign it for various reasons. Those concerns were answered by the Bill or Rights, or 1st ten Amendments of the Constitution. You could consider Amendments to be updates or corrections to what was written before it. Therefor, amendments to the Constitution should trump the Constitution as it was written previously. For an example, alcohol is still illegal according to the Constitution, but a later amendment allowed it again. The same could be said as any amendment taking precedence over the Commerce Clause.

However, the 10th Amendment states that the US gov't may only do what is spelled out in the Constitution. Regulating interstate commerce is spelled out via the commerce clause. The problem is that the courts have allowed the INTERSTATE commerce clause to apply in commerce that never leaves a state. In other words, the courts have said the federal government has unlimited power under the commerce clause.

Re:Update on this story

[cpu6502]

>>>I understand though. You hate society, you hate the idea of people working together, you hate the general idea behind the formation of the United States.

Wow. I'm surprised you didn't call me a "slut" like that Democrat Radio DJ did yesterday. Oh well. (shrug).

Jefferson and Madison - do you consider them "haters" too? You probably will after you read this: âoeResolved, That the several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government. But that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes â" delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

"That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.â

Damn those Founding Fathers and their "hating society, hating people working together, and hating the general idea behind the formation of the United States." Those guys were nutjobs! (end sarcasm). No what I hate is having my penis felt up by strangers, or being irradiated by those scanners. You mentioned "other laws". Well: Isn't there a law forbidding sexual groping? Isn't that assault? Many State Prosecutors say that it is, and are arresting TSA officers for the act.

Cheers to them.

Re:Update on this story

[AK Marc]

I can only judge "liberal" by what I see, and what I see in France, Australia, England, and the US is liberal politicians (Sarkozy, Conroy, Obama, Schumer) working to censor the internet, tell us how to live, and how much energy we are allowed to consume

But by that definition, Karl Rove, Bush Jr., McCain, and such are also liberals. When your definition of "liberal" includes most politicians of both parties (and apparently all judges from the "conservative" party), then it seems to be a worthless definition.

I don't want to associate with that label.

Yes, that's obvious. You have some emotional reaction to the label that trumps all logic and reason, and thus you employ no logic or reason in any post related to that label. We see that. Though, I'm actually surprised. I didn't think you'd actually recognize that in yourself.

There's already an Anti-Patdown Law

[ikarous]

It reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.